Citation NR: 9625839
Decision Date: 09/10/96 Archive Date: 09/17/96
DOCKET NO. 94-46 712 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Wichita,
Kansas
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for hyperopia and
presbyopia.
2. Entitlement to service connection for left varicocele.
3. Entitlement to service connection for sinus bradycardia.
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Michelle D. Doses, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran apparently had active service from June 1970 to
June 1992.
This appeal arises from an April 1993 rating decision denying
the veteran’s claims for service connection for hyperopia and
presbyopia, left varicocele, and sinus bradycardia.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL
The veteran contends that the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) has no basis for concluding that there is an absence of
evidence beyond normal progression of his hyperopia and
presbyopia. He also contends that, to the extent that the VA
decision states that there is no evidence of left varicocele,
the decision is erroneous. He asserts that evidence of the
existence of left varicocele in service is of record and that
the VA examination was the only examination in 19 years where
a left varicocele was not found. Finally, he contends that,
because his sinus bradycardia is not transient, it is
chronic, and, because it can prevent routine medical
treatment, it is debilitating.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), in accordance with
the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991 & Supp.
1995), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and
material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on
its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for
the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the
Board that there is no legal basis for service connection for
hyperopia and presbyopia and that the veteran has not met the
initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a
belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claims for
service connection for left varicocele and for sinus
bradycardia are well-grounded claims.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable
disposition of the veteran’s appeal has been obtained by the
originating agency.
2. The veteran’s service medical records and VA examination
reflect that he had hyperopia and presbyopia.
3. No evidence demonstrating left varicocele related to the
veteran’s period of military service has been submitted.
4. No evidence demonstrating sinus bradycardia related to
the veteran’s period of military service has been submitted.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The veteran’s hyperopia and presbyopia is not a disease
or injury within the meaning of applicable legislation
providing for compensation benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110,
1131, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c) (1995).
2. The veteran has not submitted evidence of a well grounded
claim for service connection for left varicocele.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1995).
3. The veteran has not submitted evidence of a well grounded
claim for service connection for sinus bradycardia.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Reports of Medical Examinations dated in August 1973, August
1975, December 1979, and December 1984 reflect that in August
1973 and August 1975 the veteran reported that he had eye
trouble. He also reported that he had not had shortness of
breath, pain or pressure in chest, palpitation or pounding
heart, or any heart trouble. He noted that he had frequent
or painful urination. On all examinations, his eyes were
found to be normal. He had normal ocular motility and normal
pupils. He had distant vision of 20/20 in both eyes and near
vision of J-1. His heart was found to be normal. A small
left varicocele was found on examination in August 1973 and
December 1979.
A treatment record dated in June 1981 shows that the veteran
complained of an object in his left eye. A diagnosis of
possible dust in the eye was made.
A Report of Medical Examination dated in September 1989
reflects that the veteran reported eye trouble. He again
reported that he had not had shortness of breath, pain or
pressure in chest, palpitation or pounding heart, or any
heart trouble, and noted that he had frequent or painful
urination. On examination, his eyes were found to be normal.
He had normal ocular motility and normal pupils. His heart
was found to be normal with regular rhythm and rate and no
murmurs.
A treatment record dated in September 1991 shows that the
veteran complained of problems seeing things. The diagnosis
was mild hyperopia with good ocular health. A diagnosis of
early presbyopia changes was also made. An x-ray examination
report dated in February 1992 shows that the veteran’s heart,
mediastinum, and hilar structures were unremarkable. The
impression was negative chest.
On examination for separation from service, the veteran
reported eye trouble, palpitation or pounding heart, and
frequent or painful urination. On examination, it was noted
that he wore glasses for reading and had minor varicocele,
left testes. He had distant vision of 20/20 in both eyes and
near vision of 20/20 in one eye and 20/30 in the other. His
heart was found to be normal.
A VA examination report dated in September 1992 reflects that
the veteran denied shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, or
radiation of pain or diaphoresis associated with a prior
episode of noncardiac chest pain. He noted a history of a
left varicocele, but had no present complaints associated
with this varicocele. He complained of degeneration of
vision and noted that he began wearing eyeglasses earlier in
the year. On examination, his pupils were equal, round, and
reactive to light. Extraocular movements were intact and he
had normal field of vision. Fundi showed sharp discs. There
was regular S1 and S2 and no murmurs or gallops. The veteran
had a slow rate. There was no evidence of varicocele. The
pertinent diagnoses were sinus bradycardia and history of
left varicocele.
At a January 1994 hearing, the veteran testified that his
sinus bradycardia was the result of running a lot. He also
testified that, in the military, he was required to have
daily contact with a cathode ray tube associated with
computers and that contributed to his eye disease.
A VA examination report dated in February 1994 shows that the
veteran complained of a history of varicocele of the left
scrotal area. On examination there was no evidence of
varicocele. He related that he was found to have sinus
bradycardia, but denied any associated symptoms presently.
His EKG showed a normal sinus rhythm with a rate of 57. He
had no current symptoms consistent with cardiac disease. He
denied chest pain and shortness of breath. His actual heart
rate during the physical examination was 64. Heart sounds
were regular without murmur or gallop. A diagnosis of
history of asymptomatic sinus bradycardia with normal sinus
rhythm was made. It was noted that the veteran had an
ophthalmic history of having presbyopia.
An eye examination revealed that his visual acuity in the
right eye was 20/20-1 and in the left eye was 20/20
uncorrected. Uncorrected near vision of the right eye was J-
5 and left eye was J-7. He had no diplopia and his visual
fields were grossly normal. External examination showed
periorbits to be within normal limits in both eyes. Pupils
were 4 mm to 2.5 mm, round, and without afferent pupillary
defect in either eye. Disks, maculae, and vessels were all
normal in both eyes. The diagnosis was presbyopia which was
corrected well with reading glasses.
I. Hyperopia and Presbyopia
The veteran is seeking service connection for hyperopia and
presbyopia. Although the Board acknowledges that the veteran
had a diagnosis of presbyopia in service and on current VA
examination, and that he may have had contact with a cathode
ray tube, under the law, a grant of service connection for
refractive error of the eye, is proscribed by 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.303(c). Such disorder is not considered a disease or
injury for which service connection may be granted. As such,
there is no legal basis to grant the benefit sought and the
appeal must be denied. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 426
(1994).
II. Left Varicocele and Sinus Bradycardia
The veteran also seeks service connection for left varicocele
and sinus bradycardia. The legal question to be answered
initially is whether the veteran has presented evidence of
well grounded claims; that is, claims that are plausible. If
he has not presented well-grounded claims, his appeal must
fail with respect to these claims and there is not duty to
assist him further in the development of these claims because
such development would be futile. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). As
will be explained below, the Board finds that these claims
are not well grounded.
In pertinent part, 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 and § 1131 provide that
a veteran is entitled to disability compensation for
disability resulting from personal injury or disease incurred
in service. “A determination of service connection requires
a finding of the existence of a current disability and a
determination of a relationship between that disability and
an injury or disease incurred in service.” Watson v. Brown,
4 Vet.App. 309, 314 (1993).
The veteran has contended that service connection should be
granted for left varicocele and sinus bradycardia. Although
the record demonstrates that the veteran had left varicocele
in service, this disability was not found on current VA
examination. In addition, although the veteran reported
having had sinus bradycardia, on current VA examination, he
denied any associated symptoms and a diagnosis of history of
asymptomatic sinus bradycardia with normal sinus rhythm was
made. There is no showing that the veteran has left
varicocele or sinus bradycardia related to the in service
findings. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141, 144 (1992).
In short, no competent medical evidence has been submitted to
show that the veteran currently has left varicocele or sinus
bradycardia which is related or linked to service. Moreover,
it is noted that the veteran had no heart pathology in
service or on current VA examination; sinus bradycardia is
not a disease or injury for which service connection may be
granted in the absence of underlying heart pathology.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131.
A well-grounded claim requires more than a mere assertion;
the claimant must submit supporting evidence. Tirpak v.
Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992). Such supporting
evidence includes medical evidence of current disability.
While the veteran is certainly capable of providing evidence
of symptomatology, a layperson is generally not capable of
opining on matters requiring medical knowledge, such as the
degree of disability produced by the symptoms or the
condition causing the symptoms. See Robinette v. Brown, 8
Vet.App. 69, 74 (1995); Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 379, 384
(1995); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494 (1992).
See also Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 390, 393-94 (1994).
Here, the veteran has not submitted any medical opinion or
other medical evidence which supports his claim. The
evidence now of record does not confirm that the veteran
currently has left varicocele or sinus bradycardia related to
any in service findings. Thus, this claim may not be
considered well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107;
38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Since the claim is not well grounded, it
must, accordingly, be denied. See Edenfield v. Brown, 8
Vet.App. 384, 390; (1995). Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91
(1993). The veteran may, of course, apply to reopen his
claim at any time, particularly with medical evidence, for
example, that a varicocele is present and related to service.
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for hyperopia and
presbyopia is denied.
Entitlement to service connection for left varicocele is
denied.
Entitlement to service connection for sinus bradycardia is
denied.
CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West
1991 & Supp. 1995), a decision of the Board of Veterans'
Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits,
sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of
Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of
notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of
Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board
was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or
after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act,
Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988). The
date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes
the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you
have received is your notice of the action taken on your
appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
- 9 -